This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other. The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 begat the nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Justice Alito's ascenion to the High Court last year begat today a landmark abortion ruling that anti-abortion advocates have pushed to get for years. You can spin this any other way you want but in the end it comes down to a simple matter of personnel. Justice Alito was willing and able to go in the law where his predecessor, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. And, as a result, doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure. As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut might have said: so it goes.

Today's sharp 5-4 ruling in Gonzales v Carthart signals a new era in abortion law. With this precedent on the books, legislators in states around the country now can (and will) come forward with similar or slightly different bans upon various types of abortion procedures. We even may see that long-anticipated full, frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade (although opponents of that ruling still don't yet have the solid votes necessary to knock it out of the box). The woman's "health exception," which until today had survived all sorts of legal scrutiny, now is effectively gone and along with it an important line of defense for abortion rights advocates.

as a result, doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure.

No bias here. I mean, he didn't even mention how this might give their poor mothers a heart attack. (Of course, he could have had a reason for not mentioning mothers at all.)

Is there any reason a doctor could not perform a caesarian section in the scenario and deliver a life baby instead? Doctors probably do C sections all the time when a mothers health is at risk.

Maybe seeing the baby alive would be too traumatic for the mother so it's better to kill it?! I can't see any reason why a C-section wouldn't work except for the fact that the woman then would see the child and have a permanent reminder of it as a scar on her belly and we all know that not leaving a scar on her belly is more important than saving the life of a child. /sarcasm!

Somehow I can’t work up a lot of sympathy for Tiller the Killer and the other abortionists who do this procedure for big bucks. Partial birth abortion been discussed for years, and gynecologists agree that it is NEVER medically necessary.

Here we go...pretty soon we'll have priests and imams roaming the halls of hospitals to ensure that no woman decides for herself regarding any medical issue. It wasn't that long ago when men were consulted before their wives could have their tubes tied. And, today in Catholic hospitals (partially funded with our tax dollars), you are not allowed to prescribe the pill. While we're at it, we can issue guns at the hospitals so those who claimed to be raped can arm themselves next time! Sheesh! Posted by: Kate | April 18, 2007 04:26 PM

I'm told by a nurse that a "partial-birth abortion" is actually the delivery of a fetus that died in utero -- the words "birth" and "abortion" in this context both being complete misnomers. I asked the nurse why this fact is not reported and she indicated that pro-choice advocates have not been able to get this information reported in the main stream media. Posted by: Verify | April 18, 2007 04:46 PM

It is truly a sad day in the field of women's health. As a law student, I can truly say that this opinion was in complete disregard of not only Supreme Court precedent, but also of the medical community and their expert opinions. This opens the door for more attacks on issues relating to women's health. I don't know about anyone else, but I trust my doctor to make decisions regarding my body more than I trust Congress or the Supreme Court, especially when they aren't thinking about my health, but a super conservative agenda put forth by our so-called President. Also, to Icarus, just because a procedure makes your stomach turn doesn't make it any less necessary. I don't like to watch open heart surgery or amputations, but they are necessary for people's health. You really need to reexamine your standards if you measure the benchmark for medical necessity by how much something makes your stomach turn. Posted by: Lawgirl 16 | April 18, 2007 05:03 PM

There ARE times when it's necessary, but the only "education" on this issue have been the rabidly "pro-life" people, who by and large don't give a damn about the actual living. They oppose stem-cell research, they DON'T oppose the death penalty, so their idea of "pro-life" only applies to the unborn. I'm not saying that's how they all feel, but a large number do, and they're the ones explaining this issue. Doctors need to step up and explain that there are medical consequences to this political decision. Posted by: TZ | April 18, 2007 05:14 PM

I lost 2 grand children to partial birth abortions. Both children were exo-skeletal. I other words, their spines were outside the body. This is a direct result of my exposure to agent orange in Viet Nam. Proven fact. Now our 31 y/o daughter has breast cancer, agent orange? We are doing genetic testing. I got three cigarettes in every meal during three tours, thanks America. Posted by: Phil Elliott | April 18, 2007 05:18 PM

All these "values" legislations are fascist leaning events - and Americans do not understand what that means. Sleepwalkers. Government has NO BUSINESS telling citizens what to think or how to decided their health related decisions; telling them how to live their lives, what is good and bad. This is the basis of fascist government. So it goes, one more step down the slippery slope. Posted by: jmm430069 | April 18, 2007 05:44 PM

With the appointment of Roberts and Alito, the majority of the SCOTUS justices are Catholic, the same majority of five that voted to uphold the ban on the medical procedure known as "intact dilation and extraction." The politically-charged term "partial birth abortion" does not exist in the medical lexicon. Doctors and their patients no longer have the autonomy to decide what is medically appropriate for themselves. What's next, granting the unborn fetus rights of "personhood"? Posted by: Abigail Hayward | April 18, 2007 05:49 PM

Most Americans are opposed to 'partial birth' abortions if you describe an intact D&E like a scene from a horror movie. Bust ask Aericans if they support abortion between 12 and the legal limit of 22 weeks and a majority are in favor! What has hurt the pro-abortion side is how this procedure was framed and described by non-doctors. It's infuriating. Posted by: Dhalgren | April 18, 2007 05:55 PM

Conservative white men telling women what they can do to their bodies. American Equality! Soon white men will be tellng the whole worldw hat they can do. Women everywhere should unite against the conservative republican base and declare their own freedom of choice, even if their husbands do not allow them to be free. Courage leads to equality! Republicans lack courage and so they fight behind black robes and republican ideals. Posted by: patrick | April 18, 2007 06:08 PM

I find that comment disturbing, and wonder if the repeat of the facist viewpoints of the Nazi party are coming to pass in the U.S. The parallels are chilling. And I am so sick of of neo-conservatives making people with differing viewpoints out to be evil, this kind of sputtering, rabid posturing is tearing this country apart. Sinclair Lewis said: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." And the scary thing is, I think the idealouges are proud of this. We are living in dangerous times people, the "religous" right can obtain a foothold in our government. I truly fear for the sake of our union. Posted by: amw1972 | April 18, 2007 06:28 PM

What the anti-abortion folks don't realize, is that all of us pro-abortion folks don't do squat about the Roe VS Wade because it has been safe from overturning. If it looks like it will be tried to be overturned, we will come out in full force, and take back this country from the religious right - which with their control over the past 6 years, has proven horribly wrong. I don't understand how it is a liberal thought and/or position to allow a woman to choose to carry a fetus to term. If men were the ones to be pregnant, then this would never be an issue. And I'd like to add that all of the efforts that have gone into overturning Roe, surely add up to millions if not billions of dollars - wouldn't that money have been better spent helping the poor? helping single mothers with pregnancy issues? AIDS? Dafur? New Orleans! Anything other than this constant, useless bickering. If you dont like abortions, dont get one. Posted by: Keep religion out of government | April 18, 2007 06:36 PM

As a man, it's not as big a deal what I think because, honestly, I'm not the one that has to carry a baby to term. I'm pretty sure that whether it's for an abortion or for carrying a baby to term when you have no desire to have it, it's a tough decision. This ruling is about one big issue. Given that abortion is a recognized right according to the Constitution, we need to start getting things regulated to the point that the country can quit the spitting contest about abortion and set down some hard rules and procedures. Partial-birth abortion gets the boot unless it is a danger to the mother to use another method (and for the record, none of the doctors I've spoken with on the ruling would think twice about performing the procedure if the mother's life is at risk). Now what will be legal, what won't be legal. If we can maybe reach a consensus compromise in this country, maybe abortion won't be that little question nobody talks about in polite conversation and hints at jokingly as a hard topic. Then again, a lot of people make a lot of money off the fiery rhetoric that anti-abortion activists use. I doubt they're going away anytime soon. Posted by: Vic van Meter | April 18, 2007 08:02 PM

It's time for you women to learn your place. Get back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant where you belong. Posted by: Thomas Jefferson | April 18, 2007 09:10 PM

Wow.

20
posted on 04/18/2007 6:33:52 PM PDT
by M203M4
(Constitutional Republic has a nice ring to it - alas, it's incompatible with the communist manifesto)

Exactly, and G.W. only went with him because he knew that his first choice disturbed his base. Rudy, John, and Mitt do not have a loyalty to the base, and they will not concern themselves with our views of their SCOTUS nominees.

Hey. So we have decided that you can no longer rip a live baby to shreds during birth, even if the mother’s health ‘might’ be in danger after a complete pregnancy term. Why did we ever think we could? Who came up with this $hit?

Over 1 million babies are aborted in the US each year. That’s 1,000,000+

"With this precedent on the books, legislators in states around the country now can (and will) come forward with similar or slightly different bans upon various types of abortion procedures"

How can this be a precedent mr Cohen? The SCOTUS reversed a discusting method of killing under the guise of a 'women's right to choose'. Killing a child that can survive on its own if it were not in his mother's womb is not a presedent mr Cohen. Not allowing an expansion of a monstrous procedure is by no means a "precedent" if anything, mr Cohen it is rectifying a bad law. And yes mr cohen. A child has already been saved today doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy?

doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure.

doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure. murdering babies at the moment of delivery!

26
posted on 04/18/2007 6:52:27 PM PDT
by LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)

Nice to see when activism and prayers finally pay off! I celebrated with a few beers after work. Could this be a shot in the arm for conservatives!?...I'm wondering, did we bottom out, and can uses this to climb back?...Can we now PUNT these campaigning RINOS and get behind 1 single Republican already?

Doesn't matter; nor does it matter what Hillary's first choice would be. If Rudy, Mitt, or John are elected, they will most likely give us a Stephens (appointed by Ford), a Souter (appointed by Bush 41), or maybe, if we're lucky, a Kennedy (appointed by Reagan).

In my view, none of these choices are really better than Ginsberg or Breyer who were appointed by the 'Big He'.

The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 begat the nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Justice Alito's ascenion to the High Court last year begat today a landmark abortion ruling that anti-abortion advocates have pushed to get for years.

And this adds, very positively, to President Bush's legacy for those who fret about how history will view him.

Anthony Kennedy was Reagan's third choice, after Robert Bork was "borked" by Teddy Kennedy & friends, and Douglas Ginsburg had to withdraw because he had smoked pot too late in life. AK was good today, but Bork would have been better most of the time.

Charles Krauthammer on Brit's program pointed out how very limited this victory is--it bars one particularly barbaric procedure, but allows the baby to be killed by other means that are nearly as gruesome.

“Id like for this author to put forth one single example of when a partial birth abortion is necessary to ensure the health of the mother.”

fyi:

I refer the Senator to the State of Kansas where they have to report the reason for a partial-birth abortion; 182 were done last year, or the year before, and of those 182, none—zero—were done because of a problem with the child or a physical problem with the mother. They were classified as mental health.
So I suggest to the Senator that those in the abortion industry themselves say this is the typical procedure on the typical baby. There may be—and there are—a small number of cases that are late-term where you find out the child within the womb has a fetal abnormality and may not live. I just suggest—and you used the term—where is the brainless head? Where are the lungs outside the body? I will just say I will be happy to put a child with a disability up there. But, frankly, I don’t see the difference in my mind—and I am not too sure the public does—with respect to that being any less of a child.
It is still a child, is it not? Maybe it is a child that is not going to live long, but do we consider——

And IF one were to read Roe v. Wade alone and take IT literally, because it contains no broad definition of a woman’s health, then the absolute right of a woman to obtain an abortion ends with the first trimester. During the third trimester the state is allowed to ban abortions. The problem is that Doe vs. Bolton—which aimed to overthrow the rather liberal George Abortion law—basically took away the right of the state to ban abortions. So on this medical procedure alone is the state barred from regulating the medical practice of a physician who cannot even practice medicene generally except with their consent. Nutty law.

Yes, you can and even be published, I guess. Whatever one’s position could be on abortions in general, partial birth can not be supported. It’s a murder shielded by a legalistic trick that baby is not fully emerged.

Mother’s health, btw, would be much less stressed if she would just proceed with the birth at that point...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.